Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting data on which state are seeing the highest number of people moving into, which are seeing the most move away from, and which states are most equal net migration in/out.
This is the tip of the iceberg of a new internal migration which, I believe, is tied to a radical change in occupational trends. Right now, the centers of employment are changing in response to a service/information based economy, and with the future of automation rapidly approaching, expect even more redistribution of the population.
A service/information economy will centralize populations into fewer major cities while third, and even second tier regional cities and towns thin out, leaving only a small and widely dispersed rural population actively engaged in rural activity such as agriculture and resource extraction.
Leaving the East Coast is a pretty broad headline, isn't it? The Carolinas would certainly take exception to that statement.
But, I think the reasons are pretty transparent in the Northeast. COL, congestion, and weather are the "Big 3". Budgetary misalignment, and the gap in high vs. low income has grown quite significantly, so much like Chicago. I think a lot of the movement is coming from those who can't find the quality of life they desire with their wages.
Lest we forget, Boston was once a blue collar haven. Very limited lower class, large middle class, and some significant brahmin type of wealth specifically west and north of the city. As white collar jobs continue to infiltrate the 95 belt over the last three decades, and significant growth vectors like biopharma and tech now reign king, there's just not a lot of areas to go. If you're working class, it's either pay 40% of income on housing, or move. If you drive around Greater Boston, even the most unkept and unsightly of suburbs demand a very high price tag. As we all know, the wide-scale gentrification in NYC is even more glaring.
Boston is not shrinking, and the area is actually the fastest growing metro in the northeast. But, it's evident that the folks from Boston originally, are dispersing at an unfamiliar clip. The numbers are inflated with foreigners, both domestic and international.
Is this using United Van Lines data? Isn’t somewhat limited due to people moving to different places in various ways?
Yeah. It might be a semi-decent measure of domestic migration, but certainly doesn't track international immigration (or migration from Puerto Rico) well.
Last I checked (2017 numbers aren't out yet) every single Northeastern state besides DE (and DC, if you want to count it) was having a net outflow of domestic migrants, as was every single Midwestern state other than South Dakota. Virtually every state in the west is seeing solid net migration, but the south is much patchier, with some states having a net influx and others declining.
This is the tip of the iceberg of a new internal migration which, I believe, is tied to a radical change in occupational trends. Right now, the centers of employment are changing in response to a service/information based economy, and with the future of automation rapidly approaching, expect even more redistribution of the population.
A service/information economy will centralize populations into fewer major cities while third, and even second tier regional cities and towns thin out, leaving only a small and widely dispersed rural population actively engaged in rural activity such as agriculture and resource extraction.
This is how most of the world is becoming, like Australia for instance.
However, the US follows a different pattern. Logic would tell you that concentrating all resources in a specific region, for instance high tech in SF Bay Area or Financial Industries in NYC would make the most sense from a synergies perspective.
However, this line of reasoning drives up COL considerably. So there are second tier cities like Austin for high tech or Charlotte for banking that pick up the slack. Companies are able to get the talent to move or in some cases a local pool of talent develops in the second tier cities and companies can take advantage of cheaper land, generous incentives (usually), and usually less regulation and taxes.
This is mainly because each state is mainly a pseudo-country as the taxes and regulation vary so greatly between the states. This in contrast to say, Canada, where most of the country is uninhabitable and there isn't much difference between the regions, except Quebec. Or Australia, where there is virtually no differences. and the population density, while high in the cities quickly peters out so an office can locate 30 miles from the city and it's usually sparsely populated there and land much cheaper.
I do agree that rural America will see continual population declines except in energy extraction regions and retirement locations. For instance here in Austin both the east and west counties near us are growing, even the ones in the countryside as people want larger lots or horses or a place in the Hill Country or whatever.
Yeah. It might be a semi-decent measure of domestic migration, but certainly doesn't track international immigration (or migration from Puerto Rico) well.
Last I checked (2017 numbers aren't out yet) every single Northeastern state besides DE (and DC, if you want to count it) was having a net outflow of domestic migrants, as was every single Midwestern state other than South Dakota. Virtually every state in the west is seeing solid net migration, but the south is much patchier, with some states having a net influx and others declining.
Do you know how to find 2016 numbers? I'm having trouble locating them. For some reason I was under the impression that there were a couple other states in those areas that were still posting anemic gains in domestic migration. I'd like to confirm my suspicion or prove myself wrong.
Do you know how to find 2016 numbers? I'm having trouble locating them. For some reason I was under the impression that there were a couple other states in those areas that were still posting anemic gains in domestic migration. I'd like to confirm my suspicion or prove myself wrong.
I found the data in Census Factfinder. Totals for 2015-2016:
Northeast:
New York -191,367
New Jersey -66,791
Pennsylvania -45,565
Connecticut -29,880
Maryland -26,232
Massachusetts -25,606
Rhode Island -3,784
Vermont -2,865
Maine 2,169
New Hampshire 2,187
District of Columbia 2,276
Delaware 3,027
A few more states (Maine and New Hampshire) are gaining now
South Dakota remains the only Midwestern state seeing a net influx of migrants.
West:
California -109,023
Hawaii -10,021
New Mexico -9,748
Montana 6,853
Idaho 17,143
Utah 19,778
Nevada 34,575
Oregon 50,038
Colorado 50,216
Arizona 61,544
Washington 67,571
Virtually everywhere in the West is seeing transplants, save CA, HI, and NM.
South:
Virginia -25,343
Louisiana -12,243
Mississippi -9,690
West Virginia -7,659
Oklahoma -3,822
Kentucky -3,429
Alabama -864
Arkansas 195
Tennessee 30,519
Georgia 36,781
South Carolina 47,084
North Carolina 59,584
Texas 125,703
Florida 207,155
The South is mixed. As has been the case in the past, TX and the Atlantic Coastal southern states tend to capture all of the migration, with the interior south (save Tennessee) seeing little to no growth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
